I chose these 3 specifically because they rank high on all time lists but they seem to have the most holes in they legacy. the criticisms that often haunt them are in quotes.
Obviously all great players, but perhaps, shouldn't be ranked as high as they routinely are.

If you chose "Other", the player must be a sure shot HOF'er and a regular on all time listings. (lets say top 20)

Poll question: So.. who's the most overrated player ever?

Poll result (36 votes) Big O: "inflated stats"/ "only one ring"/ "needed Kareem" (2 votes) Vote Bill Russell: "glorified role player"/ "always on stacked teams"/ "would be outplayed today"" (9 votes) Vote Kobe:"self centered"/ "no defining playoff performance"/ "Shaq sidekick" (24 votes) Vote Other (1 votes) Vote

I know this is a basketball question, but it's still Jeter.

I'm not a proponent of simply ranking players by WAR, but I do think it offers a reasonable point of comparison, and Jeter needs a 2.1 WAR season next year to match Lou Whitaker's career total. That's two statistically similar players; one will be a near unanimous first year HOF selection, and the other immediately fell off the ballot. While Whitaker is certainly underrated, Jeter is similarly overrated.

I'll let my male relatives know of your desire to bareback them.

does that mean Gwynn is similarly overrated too?

also, Jeter has a higher career WAR than Reggie Jackson, Ernie Banks, Al Simmons, Dave Winfield, Yogi Berra, Harmon Killebrew, Willie Stargell, Eddie Murray, Willie McCovey etc. So if you think WAR offers a reasonable point of comparison, then Jeter isn't really overrated. Whitaker is certainly underrated though.

If you look at HOF voting percentage as a measure of "ratedness", Gwynn is 7th with 97.61%. 6th is Hank Aaron with 97.83. The next 10 or so people behind Gwynn include Mike Schmidt, Steve Carlton, Babe Ruth, Rickey Henderson, and Willie Mays. HOF voting percentage isn't necessarily a true metric of ratedness, but all of those other guys were a lot better at baseball than Tony Gwynn.

Meanwhile, as Tony breezes into the Hall, a tremendous amount of ink has been spilled about how Tim Raines is outside looking in despite the two having similar value over the course of their careers. In summary:

"Tony Gwynn and Tim Raines were two fantastic ballplayers who had slightly different skills. One was disproportionately heralded in his time thanks to his extreme success by the traditional measures of batting average and hits, while the other was under-appreciated in a career that included a more concentrated early peak and a lot more ups and downs. The two were equally valuable on both career and peak levels, and there is absolutely no reason why one should be in the Hall of Fame on the first ballot while the other should languish outside for more than five seconds."

should've known one of you baseball nerds (and I say that with the highest regard) would point that out, but I was just going for a player who's HOF credentials were well-established (even if 7th highest HOF vote % is crazy high)

that's basically my point with Jeter. the people who complain about how overrated he is always seem to overlook the fact that he has actually been a great player and would be a lock for Cooperstown based on the numbers alone regardless.

And I'm with you on Raines. I'm actually kindof annoyed that most of the HOF vote talk (besides steroids) has been about Biggio's candidacy while Raines has hardly been mentioned (I'm talking on-air discussion, not the internets). And I really like Biggio. But Raines is getting jobbed.

He wasn't too bad on defense either, it's just that one 2b a decade gets in the hall, and his career coincided with Joe Morgan's, so he's on the outside looking in. Gwynn really is overrated, he hit a ton of singles and rarely walked. Raines actually reached base more times in his career than Gwynn did, hit 35 more home runs, and stole almost 500 more bases while getting caught stealing only 21 more times. Gwynn is a .338/.388/.459 player, Raines is a .294/.385/.425, 1 gets 97% of the HOF vote, the other can't get ahead of Jack Morris on the ballot. With these two, as with Jeter and Lou, I think their levels of "ratedness" should fall somewhere in between where they are.

Jeter's level of perception benefits greatly from being a Yankee and playing with enough other HOFers get to the postseason every year and win a few rings. If he has the same career in Kansas City and never makes the playoffs, where would he be on the public's radar?

that was the point. your comparison really shows that one is underrated, not that the other is really that overrated.


>He wasn't too bad on defense either, it's just that one 2b a
>decade gets in the hall, and his career coincided with Joe
>Morgan's, so he's on the outside looking in. Gwynn really is
>overrated, he hit a ton of singles and rarely walked. Raines
>actually reached base more times in his career than Gwynn did,
>hit 35 more home runs, and stole almost 500 more bases while
>getting caught stealing only 21 more times. Gwynn is a
>.338/.388/.459 player, Raines is a .294/.385/.425, 1 gets 97%
>of the HOF vote, the other can't get ahead of Jack Morris on
>the ballot. With these two, as with Jeter and Lou, I think
>their levels of "ratedness" should fall somewhere in between
>where they are.

Same as above. And yeah Gwynn is probably somewhat overrated but let's not act like he was Ichiro, .388 career OBP is excellent and very respectable .459 SLG%, 132 OPS+ and 763 XBH (50 more than Raines) and a very good basestealer + excellent rightfielder when he was younger. I'm as mad as anybody that Raines isn't getting the HOF votes he deserves, but that doesn't make Gwynn any less of a great player.


>Jeter's level of perception benefits greatly from being a
>Yankee and playing with enough other HOFers get to the
>postseason every year and win a few rings.

Of course it does. But he's still a great player regardless. And yeah those were great teams he was on but since you brought it up he actually won his first few rings playing with only one other HOFer.

>If he has the same
>career in Kansas City and never makes the playoffs, where
>would he be on the public's radar?

he's going to pass Honus Wagner next season for most hits ever by a SS and should be top 5 all-time in hits the following year (barring injury), that would put him on the radar no matter where he was playing. would he be on the general public's radar like he is now on magazine covers and running through hollywood starlets like water? no. but his career accomplishments would now be getting recognition and he would still be a 1st-ballot HOFer.

...its only retard yankee fans that believe he's a "great" ...put im on the KC Royals and he'd never be mentioned at all

because they're actually pretty impressive. put him on the KC Royals and his numbers alone would make him a HOFer.

If people are going to consider Wade one of the greatest 2 guards ever like I think they probably will

The 2006 Heat don't win with Kobe Bryant as
the starting 2-guard

----------------------------

Young Broadway Star Urgently Needs a Bone Marrow Donor. Is it you? http://MatchShannon.com/







O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

Not really debatable


----------------------------

Young Broadway Star Urgently Needs a Bone Marrow Donor. Is it you? http://MatchShannon.com/







O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

But you know god damn well wade ain't better

Wade is still, for the most part, living off his 06 infamy

That was special.

----------------------------

Young Broadway Star Urgently Needs a Bone Marrow Donor. Is it you? http://MatchShannon.com/







O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

He does. All stars do. There's been some really bad calls in Kobe's favor.

But you guys know that the 2006 finals is the undisputed king of terrible refs, don't you? Of course you do, I dunno why I'm debating this.

And I ain't even a Kings fan.

Kobe was a great Robin that series, no doubt



----------------------------

Young Broadway Star Urgently Needs a Bone Marrow Donor. Is it you? http://MatchShannon.com/







O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

Btw...good job replying to me. I'll take that as a W as usual.

This is not debatable


----------------------------

Young Broadway Star Urgently Needs a Bone Marrow Donor. Is it you? http://MatchShannon.com/







O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

Want me to dig up links? What's not debatable is that series and Wade were officiated the worst of any in NBA history. Thanks!

We'll keep rolling with it 'til you admit it

----------------------------

Young Broadway Star Urgently Needs a Bone Marrow Donor. Is it you? http://MatchShannon.com/







O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

Does it take anything away from Wade or Miami? No, but we all know that '06 finals was absolutely egregious.

HOLES IN THE LEGACY?

Robertson was the most dominant individual player not named Wilt of his era. There were NO PLAYERS not named Russell winning titles then. That is the dumbest fucking thing I have ever read until ...

Russell having holes in his legacy! Bill fucking Russell!! Winner of ELEVEN titles, two as a player coach as well! Innovator of interior defense in the entire sport! The engine of the single greatest dynasty in pro sports history! A guy who won as both an incredible favorite and a massive underdog! Oh, my God, I am going to have a stroke!

Nobody despises Kobe more than I do (I also hate Russell retroactively), but even with him I think "holes in legacy" is about the poorest choice in words imaginable.

we were best of friends ..and then this happened

baby, just give me one more chance. i got you that dickey simpkins bobblehead you wanted for our anniversary.

http://bossip.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/scottie.jpg?w=500&h=320

Ewing never had a season as good as Pippen in 94, and was routinely bested by other top centers

Has Pippen ever been the go to player on his own team?

Has Pippen ever had more than 1 year when it was even debatable he was the best player on his own team?
And even that year when it came down to it Kukoc bested him.

I'm not even debating Kukoc vs. Ewing with you, cause if you even think Pippen > Ewing then you're proving my point at how overrated Pippen is.

>Has Pippen ever been the go to player on his own team?

1994.

>Has Pippen ever had more than 1 year when it was even
>debatable he was the best player on his own team?

1994.

>And even that year when it came down to it Kukoc bested him.

Kukoc bested him in 1 game, the headache game. Other than that...

>>Has Pippen ever been the go to player on his own team?
>
>1994.

WRONG. When it came time to be a go to guy Kukoc got the ball as designed by the coach ho knew who was clutch. Don't have revisionist history.

>>Has Pippen ever had more than 1 year when it was even
>>debatable he was the best player on his own team?
>
>1994.
>
>>And even that year when it came down to it Kukoc bested him.
>
>Kukoc bested him in 1 game

It was the biggest game of the series, the biggest play of the series the biggest game of the season, the biggest play of the season, and Pippen sat out the play like a bitch.

>Has Pippen ever been the go to player on his own team?

Twice actually. 94 Bulls & 00 Blazers, those were unquestionably Pippen's teams.


>Has Pippen ever had more than 1 year when it was even
>debatable he was the best player on his own team?

Dont be dense. Without MJ who is generally accepted as GOAT, Pippen was easily the 2nd best perimeter player in the league



>And even that year when it came down to it Kukoc bested him.

foh, you basing this on one play, and you know it. You could have picked any other year but this one to make your point lol. This was Pippen's best season




>I'm not even debating Kukoc vs. Ewing with you, cause if you
>even think Pippen > Ewing then you're proving my point at how
>overrated Pippen is.

Again. Pippen's neither under or overated. But I know he's better than Ewing though, even without the rings.

let this marinate for a second...

7× NBA All-Star (1990, 1992–1997)
NBA All-Star Game MVP (1994)
3× All-NBA First Team (1994–1996)
2× All-NBA Second Team (1992, 1997)
2× All-NBA Third Team (1993, 1998)
8× NBA All-Defensive First Team (1992–1999)
2× NBA All-Defensive Second Team (1991, 2000)

>>Has Pippen ever been the go to player on his own team?
>
>Twice actually. 94 Bulls & 00 Blazers, those were
>unquestionably Pippen's teams.


Nope Sheed and Steve Smith were better, and more clutch and the teams go to guys. Pippen was old and damn near finished.

>>Has Pippen ever had more than 1 year when it was even
>>debatable he was the best player on his own team?
>
>Dont be dense. Without MJ who is generally accepted as GOAT,
>Pippen was easily the 2nd best perimeter player in the league.

1- Dominique Wilken would beg to differ
2- That's not what I asked...ANSWER THE QUESTION I ASKED..He played on three teams...WAS HE EVER THE BEST PLAYER ON HIS OWN TEAM?

>>And even that year when it came down to it Kukoc bested him.
>
>foh, you basing this on one play, and you know it. You could
>have picked any other year but this one to make your point
>lol. This was Pippen's best season

So....he sat out the biggest play of the season.


>7× NBA All-Star (1990, 1992–1997)
>NBA All-Star Game MVP (1994)
>3× All-NBA First Team (1994–1996)
>2× All-NBA Second Team (1992, 1997)
>2× All-NBA Third Team (1993, 1998)
>8× NBA All-Defensive First Team (1992–1999)
>2× NBA All-Defensive Second Team (1991, 2000)

I love how when debating if someone is OVERRATED, people debate it by bringing up his ratings. I LOVE THAT. HE CAN'T BE OVERRATED IF HE'S NOT RATED HIGHLY. SO ALL OF THESE RATINGS PROVE MY POINT.

All those ratings...and he still ain't shit.

**edit**
let me not say he ain't shit. That's silly. He was a good ball player a real good ball player. But Hall of Fame he ain't deserving, 50 greatest he ain't deserving, and Dream Team #1, he damn shit sure wasn't deserving. The Dream Team was some Batman shit, His Robin ass didn't belong on it.

Everyone looks good playing next to the GOAT. BJ ARMSTRONG MADE THE AL STAR TEAM!!
All the ratings you have listed came on the back of MJ. People look better when playing with GOAT level talent.

i remember when people were saying, "why would Lebron leave all that talent he had in Cleveland" My point exactly people look better when playing with superior talent.

Also his joining the Rockets was basically the nail in their coffin lol, they did better with the corpse of Clyde Drexler. On Portland, he was not INARGUABLY the man in any way, shape of form. Sheed was their best scoring option (and did things inside) and guys like Steve Smith and Sabonis were arguably as important (if not more so) than Pippen. He was a very important piece of a deep team. They also choked like shit in Game 7 of the WCF, so not really a feather in his leadership cap if he really were their fearless leader.

I am not seeing Pippen as the No. 2 perimeter player in the league for very long if at all. Really? He was an excellent all around player but people get way carried away.

I'm just sayin,

at a minimum those guys are clearly better.

People are pointing to Kobe's rings and saying he's a top 10 player all time. I'm like how? He has rings but not much else.

but not top 10

but aside from scoring, what does Kobe do better than Pippen?

I think the gap between the two is much closer than ppl wanna admit. IF I had a choice between prime Pippen or prime Kobe, Pippen gets my vote.

Pip was equal to or better at everything else (passing, defense, rebounding).

IF I had a choice between prime Pippen or prime Kobe,
>Pippen gets my vote.

And you STILL don't believe that Pip overrated huh?

It's Pippen for sure. he's the most complete out of all 3.

Also, Pippen is rated properly, he's neither over nor under by most accounts. I mean, I dont recall seeing him in anyone's top listings


>IF I had a choice between prime Pippen or prime Kobe,
>>Pippen gets my vote.
>
>And you STILL don't believe that Pip overrated huh?

GREAT player, but not The Man. He's what you want to ADD to The Man, but he ain't The Man.

Pippen over Ewing and Kobe? WOW!

I'll take the go to guy 7 footer, and the assassin, over the best Robin of all time.
But hey...

>Pippen over Ewing and Kobe? WOW!
>
>I'll take the go to guy 7 footer,
Lol at "go to guy 7 footer." what exactly did Ewing deliver in a 15 yr career in NY? I'll wait

and the assassin, over the

the self centered, one trick pony, assasin? yea you can have him


>best Robin of all time.
Perhaps. But this Robin is also the most complete out of the 3. Cry!

>Lol at "go to guy 7 footer." what exactly did Ewing deliver in
>a 15 yr career in NY? I'll wait

OK he didn't win a chip,

but 1- Are you REALLY trying to say he wasn't "go to"?
and 2- You do knw that Scottie didn't deliver anything either right? Or I am the first one to tell you that Pippen was not the delivery boy in that scenario?

>>best Robin of all time.
>Perhaps. But this Robin is also the most complete out of the
>3. Cry!

You have him, I'll take the go to guys. That matters.

hi, ryan.

cry faggot

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4101/4920970629_7fb8758dbc_z.jpg

Mike is the GOAT, but people act like it's blasphemous to compare other players. There are a dozen modern players just as skilled and athletic.

I'm all for parity but cmon now

> There are a dozen modern players just
>as skilled and athletic.

I would argue he is the second best player of all time and even I do not think he is overrated.

I also don't think there is much repugnance toward any comparison at all, but only toward those that posit that another player was as good or better. That makes sense to me. Magic was not better, he was close, but he was definitely not better. Same thing for Bird, Erving, Kobe, et al. Only guy I think might stack up is the Big O as far as guards. All time there was never and there will never be another player like Wilt, with all due respect to Jabbar and Shaq.

You don't understand how basketball was before him.

and fallible. And not always the best player in every playoff series.

Jordan will never be discussed rationally by anyone who watched the majority of his career. A player would have to win 10 scoring titles and 6 rings before we began to DISCUSS whether of not he was better than Jordan.

>Mike is the GOAT, but people act like it's blasphemous to
>compare other players. There are a dozen modern players just
>as skilled and athletic.

there might be a dozen as skilled, but that seems close

there are obviously not a dozen as skilled AND as athletic

before we even get into all the other things that made him great

-------------------------
“The other dude after me didn’t help my case. It was just like…crazy nigga factory going on.”
Dre makes no apologies for his own eccentricities. “I was young, and searching, trying to find myself,” he says. “Never did.”-- Andre B

in 20 years his limitations will be widely acknowledged.

And a bunch of nerds looking to revise history will be in their place.

Trust me, man, if I could pluck one guy out of NBA history, it would be Russell. The guy tortured two generations of basketball fans in my family. I will fight someone over a Russell-Wilt debate. That said, the guy is bar none the greatest leader in pro sports history (sorry, Mark Messier), he was the best defensive player in NBA history and his impact on the game was immense.

If not for the 68 and 69 titles, I think the argument that he was the best player on the best team (which is usually good e-fucking-nough!) would hold weight. But it doesn't. That 69 title in particular cemented his legacy in stone, it even added a compelling new dimension to the Russell side of the Russ-Wilt debate.

15 PPG is not garbage, especially on a team where you had so many other scorers. If not for the depth Boston had, all their guys would have had bigger numbers as Hondo showed as his career went on.

Russell was in the top four in rebounding EVERY season of his career, including four crowns and seven second place finishes. He was regularly in the top ten in assists, too. If you go back and look at his advanced stats, they were all excellent.

There is no statistical argument against Russell, even you are a fucking ninny who will rely on numbers over the word of anyone who saw him play and his deserved reputation as the best winner/leader/defensive player in league history.

By most accounts, he's one of only a couple of dudes who played any defense, yet he never shot better than .467 from the field. Who was guarding him? If he was playing against the same nobodies and 6'5 centers who supposedly guarded Wilt, you'd think he's crack .500 once. Even worse when you consider the fact that he played with the narrow lane. Also, career .561 FT shooter. ZERO offensive skills

Top four in rebounding becomes less impressive when you consider the fact that he played the majority of his career in an 8 team league. That means that he was in the top always in the top 50% of bigs.

>By most accounts, he's one of only a couple of dudes who
>played any defense, yet he never shot better than .467 from
>the field.

look at his numbers relative to the era and his advanced shooting. it is respectable enough, especially when shooting was nowhere near the selling point of his game.

Who was guarding him? If he was playing against the
>same nobodies and 6'5 centers who supposedly guarded Wilt,
>you'd think he's crack .500 once. Even worse when you consider
>the fact that he played with the narrow lane. Also, career
>.561 FT shooter. ZERO offensive skills

Wilt and Shaq couldnt shoot foul shots either, talk about selective criticism. If you look at the quality of centers Wilt and Russell faced, including each other, Willis Reed, Nate Thurmond, et al, it's actually BETTER than the quality of centers Shaq faced in his prime. At his peak, who were the other centers? Smits, Divac, Sabonis, Mutombo, et al. Outside of Mutumbo (a crappier, more stone-handed, much taller version of Russell ... who will also be a HOF'er!), those guys were not that great.

>Top four in rebounding becomes less impressive when you
>consider the fact that he played the majority of his career in
>an 8 team league. That means that he was in the top always in
>the top 50% of bigs.

Dude, you are a fool, he is second ALL TIME in rebounding! He is about 4000 ahead of Moses Malone at #3. If not for Chamberlain, there would be a VERY sound argument for Russell as the greatest player at the most important position in the sport. Log off.

yay!

dude was a mediocre offensive player and a great defender who gets mentioned as a top-five player because he won a bunch of chips on comically stacked teams. willie winguy shit.

Not stacked when you compare it with some of his other teams that featured 3 or 4 hall-of-famer not named Bill Russell.

the entire time, not favored to win any series.

mad?

if we adjust for the rapid pace of russell's era to make his numbers comparable to today, he averaged 12 points on 48% shooting, 12 rebounds and 4 blocks.

he's ben wallace.

while shooting a higher percentage.

but the idea that he's even in the conversation for GOAT is comedy, and a product of "willie winguy" mumbo-jumbo.

and the overwhelming majority of critiques raised in this post were pure, ignorant conjecture.

Bill Russell was not only a bad mofo in the nba but he was at usf too

.

.

basketball reference lists it for everyone. russell's is about the same as robin lopez or varejao

you can't compare PER across years when those stats weren't tracked AND 3 pointers changed the game.

his made-up basketball reference PER that normalizes 3 of the things he was good at is the same as very good basketball players today. basically they are saying: make bill russell and average defender and not give him a bonus for offensive boards and he is still a borderline all star.

it would jump up a few points if they had the data that says what we all know about his defense.

i don't have any stake in this bill russell thing...i'm not old enough to have a useful opinion. but if we're gonna talk about his stats then let's be real.

i was just responding to billy's bullshit.

Number one all time and top 20 all time in overall WS.

Seeing as they don't have defensive stats tracked and don't have game by game stats in the data base for before 84-85

....

http://gifsoup.com/view1/1165656/pippen-dunks-on-ewing-o.gif

>
>http://gifsoup.com/view1/1165656/pippen-dunks-on-ewing-o.gif

there's like one player in the history of the game that can score like him.

Jorn (well, he was a sociopath)
Admiral
T-Mac
Wilt
Bird
Bron
Durant

just to name a few

for 2-3 seasons at best, but Kobe started earlier, dominated earlier, and is STIIIIIIIIIIIIIILL a fuckin factor. T-Mac is dunking on players who can't even speak English as well as Yao. Just stop that shit.

Stop


----------------------------

Young Broadway Star Urgently Needs a Bone Marrow Donor. Is it you? http://MatchShannon.com/







O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

But it's always "____ COULD HAVE been better than/the best" instead of "____ WAS better" as y'all do with T-Mac and Kobe.

It sucks for T-Mac, especially when you see that he played with Yao, who also got hurt. The "coulda-been" file on that one is crazy. It's just the way it goes though. To his credit, T-Mac is the one guy who can truly be argued as on par w/Kobe in his prime.

vince had his moments, iverson was up there briefly and a huge star for years, mcgrady had a really dominant period and ray allen has quietly made a case as one of the ten best two guards ever.

>vince had his moments, iverson was up there briefly and a
>huge star for years, mcgrady had a really dominant period and
>ray allen has quietly made a case as one of the ten best two
>guards ever.

T-Mac was just the only one who really made me think he was Kobe's equal. Ray's perhaps one of the most underrated players and really got under Kobe's skin, especially when he came to Seattle. Woulda been kinda nice to see him paired with KD these last few years.

but I'll entertain you for a minute

for starters, MJ, Wilt, Bron & Magic are noticeably more talented than Kobe..

the first 3, goes without saying are way better athletes, its not even close.

Magic, simply, is more a complete & cerebral player.

MJ & Wilt are better scorers, and more dominant

etc.. I could go on all day

I know your using scoring as a barometer to say justify Kobe as "GOAT talent" but even that doesn't hold much weight, considering his relatively poor efficiency

It's kind of embarrassing.

disgusting, fam

Because everyone knows who this post is about, yet again.

heard some people say he's better than Rice...before this season lol cmon man rice played in the SB at 40

same goes for Megatron...

And so far, I believe even Jerry Rice has claimed Moss is the most talented receiver ever.

Moss is the most explosive player ever
at wide receiver

Almost no one says he had a better career than
Rice, though

----------------------------

Young Broadway Star Urgently Needs a Bone Marrow Donor. Is it you? http://MatchShannon.com/







O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

and before that he was the best receiver in NCAA history

tis true

NBA.

his presence on lists and stuff just acknowledges that there was pro basketball in the 40s, basically. he was the most dominant player by far and so he gets on there. he seems to get about the right level of recognition for the right reasons.

i love how in this thread, both robertson and west are called overrated for not winning titles but russell is called overratted for winning ELEVEN because he doesnt have great scoring numbers.

WTF is wrong with you guys????

and youre talking out your ass as usual.

btw youre telling me about the bron dickriding? that is rich. save it for kobestan.

*watches em sizzle*

ppl forget this cat was a 3X MVP. 3 straight, for that matter. And this during the 80's, arguably the most competitive era of the NBA.

Also, at one point Bird was generally viewed as a better than Magic by fans and writers alike. By the dawn of the 90's and Bird's failing health, that sentiment was about lost to most. But I remember well

yet i see a lot of top tens with magic and no bird.

wrong.

depending on your personnel, shit, you might WANT bird over magic IMO. he gives you more all around production, but obviously doesn't control the offensive game in the same way. i'd take magic on a blind pick, but it's really, really close.

.

He's easily the most overrated player of his generation. A lot of players gunned but never received the recognition of AI. He never adjusted his game and honed his craft.

GOAT Kobe Bryant is underrated for the record.

6× NBA Finals MVP (1991–1993, 1996–1998)
5× NBA Most Valuable Player (1988, 1991–1992, 1996, 1998)
14× NBA All-Star (1985–1993, 1996–1998, 2002–2003)
3× NBA All-Star Game MVP (1988, 1996, 1998)
NBA Defensive Player of the Year (1988)
10× NBA scoring champion (1987–1993, 1996–1998)
3× NBA steals champion (1988, 1990, 1993)
10× All-NBA First Team (1987–1993, 1996–1998)
All-NBA Second Team (1985)
9× NBA All-Defensive First Team (1988–1993, 1996–1998)

His team just wasn't as stacked so he didnt beat them routinely.

FOH.

Especially when you prop up Zeke who didn't win until the late 80's, ya know when Kareem was old and Magic/Bird/Mchale/Parrish were dimishing.

When Jordan got quality help, nobody took it from him. None of them can say the same.

Mike's prime did not coincide with their prime, and people won't talk about it.

Fuck is you nigga's talking about?

86-87: C's = 59-23, Lakers = 65-17. pistons = 52-30
Pistons made the ECF, Lakers over the C's in the finals...Who was washed up?
Mike that season 37ppg, 5rpg, 4.6apg on 48% shooting

FOH

87-88: C's = 57-25, Lakers = 62-20, Pistons = 54-28
C's made the ECF, lakers over the pistons in the finals...who was washed up?
Mike that season 35ppg, 5.5rpg, 5.9apg on 53% shooting

FOH sum-mo

88-89: Bird got hurt, Lakers played Pistons in the finals and lost
Mike that season 32.5ppg, 8rpg, 8apg on 54% shooting

FOH

He was handing it to them niggas from the OUTSET of his career, in their PRIMES (except for maybe Kareem). HANDING it to teams full of HOFer's and allstars.

ya'll niggas kill me.

We're talking about winning titles, not scoring.

His PRIME years- not the years he merely blew up stat sheets, but the years he was winning chips.

Jordan LOST the 63 game, remember?

I realize you're a Chicago fan and all, but there's no reason to be defensive like he got shit on. His prime and their prime were two different eras.

>We're talking about winning titles, not scoring.

Why? Why is one more relevant than the other?

>His PRIME years- not the years he merely blew up stat sheets,
>but the years he was winning chips.

So 37 ppg or 32-8-8 were not even in his prime? Damn Jordan was better than I thought!

>Jordan LOST the 63 game, remember?

JUST like a Kobe stan lmao. You don't want to talk individual anything.

If you can't see the difference between a prime player in full control of his abilities and a young talent who simply fills stat sheets, I dunno what to tell you.

or the Cs?

or Auerbach?

they won the most. it's not even close. fuck some MPLS titles, that shit is like talking about winning your intramural league.

9 was what..... an 8 team league?

Further, why would I call Red Goat when we've got Feel, who won 11 total with two entirely different teams in the modern era?

At any rate, titles don't trump all, but they matter. I dunno if you're looking for some sort of set percentage of mathematical weighting or whatever... But it seems to me the only time rings DON'T matter is when we're talking about Kobe. Everyone else though? They're a big deal.

You know good and well RA is being dishonest about Kobe. You despise Kobe, so I'm not sure how much you personally look to discount his accomplishments and stature within the pantheon. I'm not ripping apart anyone's place in that pantheon, Bill Russell included, merely defending Kobe's place. RA doesn't want to admit to ANY greatness in Kobe that could possibly encroach on any of the established sacred cows, but it does.

If you agree that 80's Mike is as great as 90's Mike simply because of the outrageous numbers, there's no conversation to be had.

He ain't have no fucking help but he was MURDERING them niggas.

If he had an mvp and two allstars on his team too, I'm sure they woulda won a few in the 80's.

If MJ is overrated cuz of when he won and the competition he had to face during (which he had no control over) then Magic and Bird are overrated given the talent level of the players they had surrounding them. What the hell is Bird if Mchale, Parish, DJ, Ainge and company aren't his supporting cast. Put him on the Bulls in the 80's and he wins NOTHING.

Magic openly admitted he would have went back to school if the Bulls won the coin toss because he wanted to play with the league MVP (Kareem). Worthy, Kareem, Coop...all them niggas make Magic overrated. He goes to Chicago and he wins NOTHING in the 80's.

You dudes are really being intellectually dishonest here.

But we know...it's that "I don't like MJ" agenda.

Cool. Have fun.

>If MJ is overrated cuz of when he won and the competition he
>had to face during (which he had no control over) then Magic
>and Bird are overrated given the talent level of the players
>they had surrounding them.

I never called Mike overrated. I simply said there was an argument to be made for Mike in his prime not facing Bird/Magic in their prime.

Basically, I wonder if his 90's Bulls squads would have won 6 titles against Bird's Celtics and Magic's Lakers. I doubt it.

Anyhow, I don't get where you think I'm saying he's overrated. That's not even implied.

His actual ability, impact, and presence in his era FAR overshadow every other player in history. No other player presents such a mythical figure. We should be looking at Mike's greatness in awe
as we already do, however there should be, without question, the following caveat whenever his name is mentioned as GOAT: "....but he's no Wilt Chamberlain".

Has there ever been a player so singularly dominant to return such little in the way of team success in terms of titles? For all the talk about Kobe being selfish, NOBODY has been more about getting theirs than Wilt. Further, his era was unbelievably undersized in comparison to him. So sure, he put up unreal numbers, but titles matter at this level. 2 is great, but he's on the short list of guys you expect to have a whole lot more. Sure, he had the Russell/Celtics buzz saw to contend with, but.... he really should have been that buzz saw everyone else got slaughtered by en route to a title.

It's funny that Kobe is mentioned, because he's that rare player with individual accolades and immense team success. Odd for a guy labeled as selfish his whole career. While people like to knock him for having great players around him, go look at the hall of famers Magic, Bird, Russell, and Wilt had around them when they got their rings and compare it to the number Kobe had on his teams when he got HIS rings. That's the most illogical, unfair and one sided argument imaginable for the 'Kobe is over rated' crowd, and yet it remains perhaps the most commonly consistent and adamant arguments in use.

Further, Kobe gets lambasted for not having as much in the way of overwhelming statistical seasons as, say, O- who put up all kinds of numbers that ultimately netted a solitary title. Basketball fans have such a hard time reconciling the divide between team and individual success when it comes to Kobe, because there's a VERY short list of guys who had such a balance of individual+team greatness. I mean... Jordan... Magic... Bird... Shaq, Cap......and uh... Russell... and who else really? Not much cake-and-eat-it-too action going on there on that level. 5 titles is a LOT.

Oh, and lets not forget his sheer consistency over time. How many guys played at this level 17 seasons in, plagued with injuries over the last few years?

Lets not forget his injuries over the past four years. How much time did he take off? He laid his eggs in that Boston series in 09, sure, and yet he still found a way to contribute in major ways (18 boards in a title game for a guard? lol. Come on.) despite a gaggle of injuries at the time. We give other players a pass for their injuries, yet Kobe played through and WON with injuries that realistically begged for time off. Oh, and he played in the Olympics during that period.

Wilt though... for all his greatness, team success was more limited than it should have been based on just how immense his individual talent is. That balance isn't there; his individual accolades FAR outweigh his team accomplishments.

It's laughable that Kobe has so many votes, but then I know where I am an who I'm talking to.

and the reason he only won 1 ring in his prime was because he choked in so many game 7s.

for all the talk about how Russell's teams were WAY better, Wilt's teams were good enough to force a 7th game against Boston a handful of times, and Wilt lost virtually all those game 7s, and these were close games.

>His actual ability, impact, and presence in his era FAR
>overshadow every other player in history. No other player
>presents such a mythical figure. We should be looking at
>Mike's greatness in awe
>as we already do, however there should be, without question,
>the following caveat whenever his name is mentioned as GOAT:
>"....but he's no Wilt Chamberlain".

That is already how I look at it, so, there are no "ifs" or "shoulds" there. Even with Shaq, as dominant as he was, he was CONSTANTLY measured against Chamberlain and easily fell short.

>Has there ever been a player so singularly dominant to return
>such little in the way of team success in terms of titles?

Yes, EVERY OTHER PLAYER IN HIS ERA. Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, et al. You can't find ANYONE active during the Cs dynasty with more titles. Chamberlain got two. Pettit only got one. West got none (it was post-Celtics), Baylor got none, Robertson got none (one later with Milwaukee) and so on. If you were not on the Celtics, you were not winning, period, and Wilt still managed to snag one title and then later a second one. This is a dumb ass argument. Wilt's teams were consistently deep in the playoffs, only his years in SF were weak from a team standpoint. The Philadelphia Warriors were a one man show and still competitive, once he got to the Sixers they were perennial contenders and won a title.

For
>all the talk about Kobe being selfish, NOBODY has been more
>about getting theirs than Wilt.

Oh really? Did I miss the year Kobe led the league in assists? Or when he led the league in scoring, rebounds, assists and I believe blocks also? Chamberlain was about that early in his career and why shouldn't he have been? Are you going to tell me some middling Warriors team would have been better if Wilt did NOT score 50 and get 25 boards a night? That they had better options. Wilt was, at that point, what Kobe and every other player only dreamed to be. A total mismatch for the league that re-wrote the rulebook. Later, when he had the team around him and an impetus to change his game, he absolutely did. If you read anything guys like Hannum and Ramsay wrote, it will confirm that. He was certainly stubborn and mercurial, but he made a HUGE adjustment in his game that you are completely overlooking in favor of non-truths.

Further, his era was
>unbelievably undersized in comparison to him. So sure, he put
>up unreal numbers, but titles matter at this level. 2 is
>great, but he's on the short list of guys you expect to have a
>whole lot more. Sure, he had the Russell/Celtics buzz saw to
>contend with, but.... he really should have been that buzz saw
>everyone else got slaughtered by en route to a title.

His teams and the Lakers were the only ones to consistently challenge the Cs, everyone else faded in and out. The Celtics had dominant TEAMS, the only knock against Wilt was Russell's swan song in 1969, and it wasn't like Boston didn't pull off two upsets in series just to reach the Finals. Seven game series with Wilt benched at the end over petty shit, but still a major blow in the Russ-Wilt debate.

As far being undersized, well let's take a look at Chamberlain's competitive vs Shaq's or Dwight Howard. Shaq had some guys early in his career and never separated himself from them (Ewing, Hakeem, Robinson). Later he was dominant against a bunch of respectable but hardly dominant imports. Chamberlain competed against not only Russell but Thurmond, Reed and how about Kareem? If you do the boxing the man who beat the man, anyone who played against Kareem goes WAY up into NBA history because his career was so long. So we can see what Wilt would have done against later greats and even in his OWN time, he played better competition than more recent dominant centers.

>It's funny that Kobe is mentioned, because he's that rare
>player with individual accolades and immense team success. Odd
>for a guy labeled as selfish his whole career. While people
>like to knock him for having great players around him, go look
>at the hall of famers Magic, Bird, Russell, and Wilt had
>around them when they got their rings and compare it to the
>number Kobe had on his teams when he got HIS rings. That's the
>most illogical, unfair and one sided argument imaginable for
>the 'Kobe is over rated' crowd, and yet it remains perhaps the
>most commonly consistent and adamant arguments in use.

I don't care about this paragraph, I don't think Kobe is "overrated" generally, anyway.

>Further, Kobe gets lambasted for not having as much in the way
>of overwhelming statistical seasons as, say, O- who put up all
>kinds of numbers that ultimately netted a solitary title.
>Basketball fans have such a hard time reconciling the divide
>between team and individual success when it comes to Kobe,
>because there's a VERY short list of guys who had such a
>balance of individual+team greatness. I mean... Jordan...
>Magic... Bird... Shaq, Cap......and uh... Russell... and who
>else really? Not much cake-and-eat-it-too action going on
>there on that level. 5 titles is a LOT.

Anyone pointing to the "titles" argument re: Robertson, West, Baylor, Chamberlain, et al just does not understand the era and how dominant the Celtics were.

>Oh, and lets not forget his sheer consistency over time. How
>many guys played at this level 17 seasons in, plagued with
>injuries over the last few years?
>
>Lets not forget his injuries over the past four years. How
>much time did he take off? He laid his eggs in that Boston
>series in 09, sure, and yet he still found a way to contribute
>in major ways (18 boards in a title game for a guard? lol.
>Come on.) despite a gaggle of injuries at the time. We give
>other players a pass for their injuries, yet Kobe played
>through and WON with injuries that realistically begged for
>time off. Oh, and he played in the Olympics during that
>period.

Right, because Wilt was inconsistent in some way and he didn't contribute in EVERY imaginable way (besides foul shooting) to wins all the time. If you are trying to sell me on Kobe impacting the game in more ways than Wilt, you will never succeed, because it didn't happen.

>Wilt though... for all his greatness, team success was more
>limited than it should have been based on just how immense his
>individual talent is. That balance isn't there; his individual
>accolades FAR outweigh his team accomplishments.

So you are saying that because he was the most gifted player ever, who put up the biggest numbers, who put up the biggest adjusted numbers (real it in Kalb's book) and who "only" won two titles, he is more overrated than ANY other player. Riiiiiiiight.

>It's laughable that Kobe has so many votes, but then I know
>where I am an who I'm talking to.

I should know who I am talking, a posturing bitch.

>His actual ability, impact, and presence in his era FAR
>overshadow every other player in history. No other player
>presents such a mythical figure. We should be looking at
>Mike's greatness in awe
>as we already do, however there should be, without question,
>the following caveat whenever his name is mentioned as GOAT:
>"....but he's no Wilt Chamberlain".

That is already how I look at it, so, there are no "ifs" or "shoulds" there. Even with Shaq, as dominant as he was, he was CONSTANTLY measured against Chamberlain and easily fell short.

>Has there ever been a player so singularly dominant to return
>such little in the way of team success in terms of titles?

Yes, EVERY OTHER PLAYER IN HIS ERA. Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, et al. You can't find ANYONE active during the Cs dynasty with more titles. Chamberlain got two. Pettit only got one. West got none (it was post-Celtics), Baylor got none, Robertson got none (one later with Milwaukee) and so on. If you were not on the Celtics, you were not winning, period, and Wilt still managed to snag one title and then later a second one. This is a dumb ass argument. Wilt's teams were consistently deep in the playoffs, only his years in SF were weak from a team standpoint. The Philadelphia Warriors were a one man show and still competitive, once he got to the Sixers they were perennial contenders and won a title.

For
>all the talk about Kobe being selfish, NOBODY has been more
>about getting theirs than Wilt.

Oh really? Did I miss the year Kobe led the league in assists? Or when he led the league in scoring, rebounds, assists and I believe blocks also? Chamberlain was about that early in his career and why shouldn't he have been? Are you going to tell me some middling Warriors team would have been better if Wilt did NOT score 50 and get 25 boards a night? That they had better options. Wilt was, at that point, what Kobe and every other player only dreamed to be. A total mismatch for the league that re-wrote the rulebook. Later, when he had the team around him and an impetus to change his game, he absolutely did. If you read anything guys like Hannum and Ramsay wrote, it will confirm that. He was certainly stubborn and mercurial, but he made a HUGE adjustment in his game that you are completely overlooking in favor of non-truths.

Further, his era was
>unbelievably undersized in comparison to him. So sure, he put
>up unreal numbers, but titles matter at this level. 2 is
>great, but he's on the short list of guys you expect to have a
>whole lot more. Sure, he had the Russell/Celtics buzz saw to
>contend with, but.... he really should have been that buzz saw
>everyone else got slaughtered by en route to a title.

His teams and the Lakers were the only ones to consistently challenge the Cs, everyone else faded in and out. The Celtics had dominant TEAMS, the only knock against Wilt was Russell's swan song in 1969, and it wasn't like Boston didn't pull off two upsets in series just to reach the Finals. Seven game series with Wilt benched at the end over petty shit, but still a major blow in the Russ-Wilt debate.

As far being undersized, well let's take a look at Chamberlain's competitive vs Shaq's or Dwight Howard. Shaq had some guys early in his career and never separated himself from them (Ewing, Hakeem, Robinson). Later he was dominant against a bunch of respectable but hardly dominant imports. Chamberlain competed against not only Russell but Thurmond, Reed and how about Kareem? If you do the boxing the man who beat the man, anyone who played against Kareem goes WAY up into NBA history because his career was so long. So we can see what Wilt would have done against later greats and even in his OWN time, he played better competition than more recent dominant centers.

>It's funny that Kobe is mentioned, because he's that rare
>player with individual accolades and immense team success. Odd
>for a guy labeled as selfish his whole career. While people
>like to knock him for having great players around him, go look
>at the hall of famers Magic, Bird, Russell, and Wilt had
>around them when they got their rings and compare it to the
>number Kobe had on his teams when he got HIS rings. That's the
>most illogical, unfair and one sided argument imaginable for
>the 'Kobe is over rated' crowd, and yet it remains perhaps the
>most commonly consistent and adamant arguments in use.

I don't care about this paragraph, I don't think Kobe is "overrated" generally, anyway.

>Further, Kobe gets lambasted for not having as much in the way
>of overwhelming statistical seasons as, say, O- who put up all
>kinds of numbers that ultimately netted a solitary title.
>Basketball fans have such a hard time reconciling the divide
>between team and individual success when it comes to Kobe,
>because there's a VERY short list of guys who had such a
>balance of individual+team greatness. I mean... Jordan...
>Magic... Bird... Shaq, Cap......and uh... Russell... and who
>else really? Not much cake-and-eat-it-too action going on
>there on that level. 5 titles is a LOT.

Anyone pointing to the "titles" argument re: Robertson, West, Baylor, Chamberlain, et al just does not understand the era and how dominant the Celtics were.

>Oh, and lets not forget his sheer consistency over time. How
>many guys played at this level 17 seasons in, plagued with
>injuries over the last few years?
>
>Lets not forget his injuries over the past four years. How
>much time did he take off? He laid his eggs in that Boston
>series in 09, sure, and yet he still found a way to contribute
>in major ways (18 boards in a title game for a guard? lol.
>Come on.) despite a gaggle of injuries at the time. We give
>other players a pass for their injuries, yet Kobe played
>through and WON with injuries that realistically begged for
>time off. Oh, and he played in the Olympics during that
>period.

Right, because Wilt was inconsistent in some way and he didn't contribute in EVERY imaginable way (besides foul shooting) to wins all the time. If you are trying to sell me on Kobe impacting the game in more ways than Wilt, you will never succeed, because it didn't happen.

>Wilt though... for all his greatness, team success was more
>limited than it should have been based on just how immense his
>individual talent is. That balance isn't there; his individual
>accolades FAR outweigh his team accomplishments.

So you are saying that because he was the most gifted player ever, who put up the biggest numbers, who put up the biggest adjusted numbers (real it in Kalb's book) and who "only" won two titles, he is more overrated than ANY other player. Riiiiiiiight.

>It's laughable that Kobe has so many votes, but then I know
>where I am an who I'm talking to.

I should know who I am talking, a posturing bitch.

not sure if that works for you or against you

If that is how Hannum had to sell it to him, well, that is why Hannum is one of the best. He worked with Wilt's mentality and reconciled it with the team's goals. It was effective.

Why must you persist on being such an immature, name calling baby whenever someone has a stance you don't agree with? Jesus H, it's like talking to a woman with the name calling. Settle down with the bitch talk, cinnamon.

>>Has there ever been a player so singularly dominant to
>return
>>such little in the way of team success in terms of titles?
>
>Yes, EVERY OTHER PLAYER IN HIS ERA. Elgin Baylor, Jerry West,
>Oscar Robertson, et al.

Those players were dominant in the mythical proportions of Wilt? Really?

>the Cs dynasty with more titles. Chamberlain got two. Pettit
>only got one. West got none (it was post-Celtics), Baylor got
>none, Robertson got none (one later with Milwaukee) and so on.
>If you were not on the Celtics, you were not winning, period,
>and Wilt still managed to snag one title and then later a
>second one. This is a dumb ass argument.

I suppose if you're looking at it defensively with hurt feelings, sure. We're in a conversation about overrated players, are we not?

A factor I look at when rating players is winning titles.
Apparently titles are meaningless to you, but they aren't to me. Wilt and West are two guys who really should have had more when you look at their talent. Wilt especially, Celtics be damned.

>consistently deep in the playoffs, only his years in SF were
>weak from a team standpoint. The Philadelphia Warriors were a
>one man show and still competitive, once he got to the Sixers
>they were perennial contenders and won a title.

Great. He netted two rings total, a feat, but again... Wilt is on the short list of guys many truly feel could have and perhaps should have won more.

>Wilt was, at that point, what Kobe and every
>other player only dreamed to be.

And that's precisely the kind of player people would think would have more than two titles for their career. The fact that this elicits such a passionate response is a little troubling.

>A total mismatch for the
>league that re-wrote the rulebook.

Sounds like the kind of guy that would have at least 4-5 to me and many others.

He lead the league in assists because he wanted to do it. It wasn't about being a team player, it was about getting those numbers.

>His teams and the Lakers were the only ones to consistently
>challenge the Cs, everyone else faded in and out. The Celtics
>had dominant TEAMS, the only knock against Wilt was Russell's
>swan song in 1969, and it wasn't like Boston didn't pull off
>two upsets in series just to reach the Finals. Seven game
>series with Wilt benched at the end over petty shit, but still
>a major blow in the Russ-Wilt debate.



>As far being undersized, well let's take a look at
>Chamberlain's competitive vs Shaq's or Dwight Howard.

For what? I'm not making the argument; in fact, I've said many times that Shaq's prime came when other great centers were gone.

Shaq had
>some guys early in his career and never separated himself from
>them (Ewing, Hakeem, Robinson). Later he was dominant against
>a bunch of respectable but hardly dominant imports.

Cool, what does this have to do with anything?

>Chamberlain competed against not only Russell but Thurmond,
>Reed and how about Kareem?

Kareem had the height, but Wilt was significantly larger than the others. Players in general were just flat out smaller overall though and that really isn't debatable.

If you do the boxing the man who
>beat the man, anyone who played against Kareem goes WAY up
>into NBA history because his career was so long. So we can see
>what Wilt would have done against later greats and even in his
>OWN time, he played better competition than more recent
>dominant centers.

I don't see where I've argued against Wilt's greatness, like at all.
In fact, my argument is all ABOUT his greatness; my position is simple. A player of HIS magnitude gets dinged a little bit for his failure to win more titles. He's THAT great that 2 doesn't feel acceptable. David Robinson, sure. Hakeem? I can live with 2.

Wilt? 2? Seems like he underachieved on that end.

>I don't care about this paragraph, I don't think Kobe is
>"overrated" generally, anyway.

I mean, I wasn't writing directly to you or anything.

>Anyone pointing to the "titles" argument re: Robertson, West,
>Baylor, Chamberlain, et al just does not understand the era
>and how dominant the Celtics were.

You're either The Man, or the guy The Man beats.

Kobe was The Man.

There's Close, and then there's The Cigar.

Kobe puffed Cubans.

The point is, titles are a factor and when you're the one who can't get over the hump while someone else runs roughshod, that matters. It's merely a piece of the puzzle, not the end all be all or anything.

>Right, because Wilt was inconsistent in some way and he didn't
>contribute in EVERY imaginable way (besides foul shooting) to
>wins all the time. If you are trying to sell me on Kobe
>impacting the game in more ways than Wilt, you will never
>succeed, because it didn't happen.

This part of the post isn't about Wilt. It's about the laughable amount of votes Kobe has on this poll.

>So you are saying that because he was the most gifted player
>ever, who put up the biggest numbers, who put up the biggest
>adjusted numbers (real it in Kalb's book) and who "only" won
>two titles, he is more overrated than ANY other player.
>Riiiiiiiight.

The balance of personal/team success is a factor, absolutely. Two titles is paltry for a man of his stature. Perhaps it just makes him overrated and not the MOST overrated ever, but it's a fair examination IMO.

>I should know who I am talking, a posturing bitch.

Oh lord. Looks like someone got their feelings hurt :(

Cheer up cowboy. The Lakers suck, sunshine, and that's something for you to smile about. I'm sorry I called The Stilt overrated, cupcake.

His rings are the be all end all don't pretend otherwise.

Dude has 1 season MVP and 2/5 w Finals MVPs foh.

EDIT: Some perspective

Kobe
2× NBA Finals MVP (2009–2010)
NBA Most Valuable Player (2008)
14× NBA All-Star (1998, 2000–2012)
4× NBA All-Star Game MVP (2002, 2007, 2009, 2011)
2× NBA scoring champion (2006–2007)
10× All-NBA First Team (2002–2004, 2006–2012)
2× All-NBA Second Team (2000–2001)
2× All-NBA Third Team (1999, 2005)
9× NBA All-Defensive First Team (2000, 2003–2004, 2006–2011)
3× NBA All-Defensive Second Team (2001–2002, 2012)

MJ
6× NBA Finals MVP (1991–1993, 1996–1998)
5× NBA Most Valuable Player (1988, 1991–1992, 1996, 1998)
14× NBA All-Star (1985–1993, 1996–1998, 2002–2003)
3× NBA All-Star Game MVP (1988, 1996, 1998)
NBA Defensive Player of the Year (1988)
10× NBA scoring champion (1987–1993, 1996–1998)
3× NBA steals champion (1988, 1990, 1993)
10× All-NBA First Team (1987–1993, 1996–1998)
All-NBA Second Team (1985)
9× NBA All-Defensive First Team (1988–1993, 1996–1998)

Bird
2× NBA Finals MVP (1984, 1986)
3× NBA Most Valuable Player (1984–1986)
12× NBA All-Star (1980–1988, 1990–1992)
9× All-NBA First Team (1980–1988)
All-NBA Second Team (1990)
3× NBA All-Defensive Second Team (1982–1984)
NBA All-Star Game MVP (1982)
3× Three-point Shootout champion (1986–1988)

Magic
3× NBA Finals MVP (1980, 1982, 1987)
3× NBA Most Valuable Player (1987, 1989–1990)
12× NBA All-Star (1980, 1982–1992)
2× NBA All-Star Game MVP (1990, 1992)
9× All-NBA First Team (1983–1991)
All-NBA Second Team (1982)
4× NBA assists leader (1983–1984), (1986–1987)
2× NBA steals leader (1982–1983)

And Kobe's NBA first team defensive appearances lend credence to voting on this poll.

First: Mike is Mike. Show me all the 2 guards with lists like Kobe's and titles to boot and then we'll talk. Also, show me all the players with a 17th season like this, where he's basically putting up prime numbers. In fact, show me all the players with a 17 year career that do not have major statistical deviations along the way, because Kobe doesn't have it.

>Bird
>2× NBA Finals MVP (1984, 1986)
>3× NBA Most Valuable Player (1984–1986)
>12× NBA All-Star (1980–1988, 1990–1992)
>9× All-NBA First Team (1980–1988)
>All-NBA Second Team (1990)
>3× NBA All-Defensive Second Team (1982–1984)
>NBA All-Star Game MVP (1982)
>3× Three-point Shootout champion (1986–1988)

So far as Bird, LOL. Seriously, if you were going to do this, you8 should have at least looked at Bird's list first. Let's see.... Bird never lead the league in any major category if this is his correct list. Never lead in rebounds, assists or scoring. Does he have even ONE defensive first team appearance, let alone 9? Actually, outside the 2 extra MVP's, this list isn't really fucking with Kobe's.

Kobe's got more:

-All Star appearances
-Titles
-All NBA First Team appearances
-Defensive First Team appearances
-All Star MVP's
-Scoring titles

So, I mean... no on Bird. Kobe wins most of these categories, some of them handily. Bird got two more MVP's, Bean got 2 more titles. Which do you think LarrY legend would rather have? Which trophy do you think HE thinks is more valuable? Either way, Kobe's list is the better list. I notice you leave the titles out of it.

>Magic
>3× NBA Finals MVP (1980, 1982, 1987)
>3× NBA Most Valuable Player (1987, 1989–1990)
>12× NBA All-Star (1980, 1982–1992)
>2× NBA All-Star Game MVP (1990, 1992)
>9× All-NBA First Team (1983–1991)
>All-NBA Second Team (1982)
>4× NBA assists leader (1983–1984), (1986–1987)
>2× NBA steals leader (1982–1983)

Pretty similar. I don't see a single all defensive team appearance, but Kobe has 9. At most you could argue... 3 of those, which would still put bean at 6-0 to Magic.

Kobe also has more All-NBA first team spots and All Star MVP's, and two scoring titles. So Magic clearly wins there with two more assists (two more titles than Kobe's scoring titles, don't play dumb. I know what you were about to say) and steals titles..... except those steals titles are dwarfed by ALL those damned Defensive Team appearances. That's a LOT. Like I said, even if you knock a few off, the gap is still huge.

So, at best, you could say they're roughly even based on these lists. Worst? Kobe wins, based on these lists. Magic shows zero recognition for his defensive abilities, while Kobe racked up so many and did so well in his prime he got residual awards based on rep alone. Or did you forget there are two sides of the ball?

Basically, Kobe belongs in that category and you're MAD.
What's worse for you is you can't play the "B-b-b-b-b-but Kobe had SHAQ!!!!" card with Magic and Bird, considering how hilariously stacked their teams were in comparison to Kobe's title teams.

Or did you forget to check the teammates each had on their title squads? I mean, add a prime James Worthy to those Kobe/Shaq years and we could be talking about 4-5 straight. Throw in Silk and Scott and Cooper while you're at. Give them those four guys it instead of Fish/Rob/Fox/Rice. Lol.

The fourth best player on the Celtics was.. who... Dennis Johnson maybe? Weren't Mchale and Parrish there to shore up Bird's defensive inadequacies?

>First: Mike is Mike. Show me all the 2 guards with lists like
>Kobe's and titles to boot and then we'll talk. Also, show me
>all the players with a 17th season like this, where he's
>basically putting up prime numbers. In fact, show me all the
>players with a 17 year career that do not have major
>statistical deviations along the way, because Kobe doesn't
>have it.

17 years work AGAINST Kobe here. Bird only played 13 lolol.

>>Bird
>>2× NBA Finals MVP (1984, 1986)
>>3× NBA Most Valuable Player (1984–1986)
>>12× NBA All-Star (1980–1988, 1990–1992)
>>9× All-NBA First Team (1980–1988)
>>All-NBA Second Team (1990)
>>3× NBA All-Defensive Second Team (1982–1984)
>>NBA All-Star Game MVP (1982)
>>3× Three-point Shootout champion (1986–1988)
>
>So far as Bird, LOL. Seriously, if you were going to do this,
>you8 should have at least looked at Bird's list first. Let's
>see.... Bird never lead the league in any major category if
>this is his correct list. Never lead in rebounds, assists or
>scoring. Does he have even ONE defensive first team
>appearance, let alone 9? Actually, outside the 2 extra MVP's,
>this list isn't really fucking with Kobe's.

Yeah, never lead the league in ppg. Only 2 more MVPs too. I guess that's a wash in Kobestan math LMAO. Kobe played 17 seasons got ONE MVP. Shine a spotlight on that shit.

>Kobe's got more:
>
>-All Star appearances
>-Titles
>-All NBA First Team appearances
>-Defensive First Team appearances
>-All Star MVP's
>-Scoring titles

in 4 more years.

>So, I mean... no on Bird. Kobe wins most of these categories,
>some of them handily. Bird got two more MVP's, Bean got 2 more
>titles. Which do you think LarrY legend would rather have?

C+ diversion. I'm sure Larry would give his 2 MVPs to Horry or anybody else with some extra rings.

>Which trophy do you think HE thinks is more valuable? Either
>way, Kobe's list is the better list. I notice you leave the
>titles out of it.

Umm because this was about individuals?

>>Magic
>>3× NBA Finals MVP (1980, 1982, 1987)
>>3× NBA Most Valuable Player (1987, 1989–1990)
>>12× NBA All-Star (1980, 1982–1992)
>>2× NBA All-Star Game MVP (1990, 1992)
>>9× All-NBA First Team (1983–1991)
>>All-NBA Second Team (1982)
>>4× NBA assists leader (1983–1984), (1986–1987)
>>2× NBA steals leader (1982–1983)
>
>Pretty similar. I don't see a single all defensive team
>appearance, but Kobe has 9. At most you could argue... 3 of
>those, which would still put bean at 6-0 to Magic.
>
>Kobe also has more All-NBA first team spots and All Star
>MVP's, and two scoring titles. So Magic clearly wins there
>with two more assists (two more titles than Kobe's scoring
>titles, don't play dumb. I know what you were about to say)
>and steals titles..... except those steals titles are dwarfed
>by ALL those damned Defensive Team appearances. That's a LOT.
>Like I said, even if you knock a few off, the gap is still
>huge.
>
>So, at best, you could say they're roughly even based on these
>lists. Worst? Kobe wins, based on these lists. Magic shows
>zero recognition for his defensive abilities, while Kobe
>racked up so many and did so well in his prime he got residual
>awards based on rep alone. Or did you forget there are two
>sides of the ball?
>
>Basically, Kobe belongs in that category and you're MAD.
>What's worse for you is you can't play the "B-b-b-b-b-but Kobe
>had SHAQ!!!!" card with Magic and Bird, considering how
>hilariously stacked their teams were in comparison to Kobe's
>title teams.
>
>Or did you forget to check the teammates each had on their
>title squads? I mean, add a prime James Worthy to those
>Kobe/Shaq years and we could be talking about 4-5 straight.
>Throw in Silk and Scott and Cooper while you're at. Give them
>those four guys it instead of Fish/Rob/Fox/Rice. Lol.
>
>The fourth best player on the Celtics was.. who... Dennis
>Johnson maybe? Weren't Mchale and Parrish there to shore up
>Bird's defensive inadequacies?

Ten years later and you don't get it lol. Having Shaq on the team wasn't the problem. Shit, if Kobe won some MVPs and Finals MVPs WITH SHAQ THERE that would have been really impressive. Larry and Magic were unquestioned leaders of super stacked teams. Kobestan loses again.

His back or whatever?

LOL@you acting like playing at this level for 17 years is some detriment to his legacy. Bird retired earlier, that's on him and his health.

And Magic?

Hey, Kobe fucked bitches too, as we all know, but uh.... He hasn't retired for health reasons as a result.

Had those guys stayed healthy, who knows? What we know is that Kobe is dropping 29 per 17 seasons in.

Oh, I know, you like the idea that him playing long works against him (X amount of accomplishments in X amount of years and all).

Of course, let's forget he entered the league at 18 as a GUARD, of all things, which was unheard of, so if you want to allow for the age they came into the league and start there with Kobe, it's still a similar list that bolsters Kobe's position. If you think his first three years coming in as an 18 year old without college play aren't going to cause a dip in performance and stats, well, I dunno what to tell you. That was his college. Plus he showed up playing behind a well established back court.

Naturally, you hate Kobe more than you like basketball, so you'll pick and choose what context to accept. The fact that Kobe did the things he did with Shaq is a testament to his abilities, not a detriment. Further, it's telling how you ignore the steep drop off after ShaKobe on those teams in comparison to what Bird and Magic had. Unquestioned leaders be damned, the bottom line is they were surrounded by superior talent to what Kobe and Shaq had around them. You gloss over that though.

People talk up Pau, but they're iffy when you start talking about him for HOF based on his NBA credentials. Not so with Parrish and McHale and Worthy and Cap. Magic and Bird each had TWO "Top 50 All Time" players. Did Kobe have that luxury with Pau and Bynum? LOL. Nope. With Shaq, it was he had Shaq and a bunch of guys who played their roles well enough. So, despite LESS stacked teams, he put together a comparable career. Interesting.

take away those first 4 years, and he's at the same 13 seasons as Bird.

it also takes away 2 All star appearances, 1 All defense, 2 All NBA, and a title.

Especially considering that leaves 8 All Defense to Birds ZERO.

At any rate, the argument wasn't about who was better or whatever, but about RA's assertion that Kobe's individual accolades don't fuck with that list AT ALL.

Even if you clip Kobe's first four years, he's got a resume that certainly "fucks with that list".

Without clipping Kobe's first four years and looking at each career as a whole? LOL. His overall list is easiloy better than Birds and pretty much on par with Magic. This idea that him playing longer hurts him is absurd; sure, they did more in less time, but at the end of the day we gotta sit back and look at their careers from start to finish, and the fact that he's still playing at a point where the others weren't is a point in his favor, not against. The only reason I brought up his first four years was because RA's is fucking with the goal posts... and like I said, even then, he's still got a list to rival theirs- especially when you consider how much more they had in terms of top to bottom talent on their respective squads.

His list doesn't beat Birds in that case, but it's about par. It's below Magic at that point. But again, you guys gotta bend, twist, contort and reach to fit shit into whatever box you need to shit on Kobe.

The defensive teams are on Kobe's resume for most overrated player of all time.

And the one HUGE gap between the two in Kobe's favor, you've outright ignored on some agenda shit.

Face facts: Kobe belongs on that list. His resume is fucking around with Magic and Bird. Deal with it.

What's sad is you can't even accept THAT much, and it's not even a "whose better?" discussion, just a discussion of individual accomplishments. You felt all froggy but didn't look before you lept and clicked "post message" and wound up posting some shit that hurt your stance, and now you're struggling to move all manner of goal posts.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/per_season.html

Rank Player PER Season Tm
1. Wilt Chamberlain* 31.84 1962-63 SFW
2. Wilt Chamberlain* 31.76 1961-62 PHW
3. Michael Jordan* 31.71 1987-88 CHI
4. LeBron James 31.67 2008-09 CLE
5. Wilt Chamberlain* 31.64 1963-64 SFW
6. Michael Jordan* 31.63 1990-91 CHI
7. Michael Jordan* 31.19 1989-90 CHI
8. Michael Jordan* 31.14 1988-89 CHI
9. LeBron James 31.11 2009-10 CLE
10. LeBron James 30.74 2011-12 MIA
11. David Robinson* 30.66 1993-94 SAS
12. Shaquille O'Neal 30.65 1999-00 LAL
13. Shaquille O'Neal 30.55 1998-99 LAL
14. Dwyane Wade 30.36 2008-09 MIA
15. Tracy McGrady 30.27 2002-03 ORL
16. Shaquille O'Neal 30.23 2000-01 LAL
17. Chris Paul 29.96 2008-09 NOH
18. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 29.94 1971-72 MIL
19. Michael Jordan* 29.78 1986-87 CHI
20. Michael Jordan* 29.70 1992-93 CHI
21. Shaquille O'Neal 29.68 2001-02 LAL
22. Shaquille O'Neal 29.49 2002-03 LAL
23. Kevin Garnett 29.44 2003-04 MIN
24. David Robinson* 29.41 1995-96 SAS
25. Michael Jordan* 29.35 1995-96 CHI
26. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 29.22 1977-78 LAL
27. LeBron James 29.14 2007-08 CLE
28. David Robinson* 29.13 1994-95 SAS
29. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 28.95 1970-71 MIL
30. Charles Barkley* 28.93 1990-91 PHI
31. Dwyane Wade 28.91 2006-07 MIA
32. Karl Malone* 28.90 1996-97 UTA
33. Shaquille O'Neal 28.79 1997-98 LAL
34. Wilt Chamberlain* 28.62 1964-65 TOT
35. Shaquille O'Neal 28.59 1994-95 ORL
36. Shaquille O'Neal 28.53 1993-94 ORL
37. George Mikan* 28.52 1952-53 MNL
38. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 28.45 1972-73 MIL
39. Chris Paul 28.31 2007-08 NOH
40. Wilt Chamberlain* 28.26 1965-66 PHI
41. Elgin Baylor* 28.24 1960-61 LAL
42. Kevin Garnett 28.20 2004-05 MIN
43. Bob Pettit* 28.19 1958-59 STL
44. Bob Pettit* 28.07 1956-57 STL
45. Dirk Nowitzki 28.06 2005-06 DAL
46. LeBron James 28.06 2005-06 CLE
47. Wilt Chamberlain* 28.04 1959-60 PHW
48. Dwyane Wade 28.02 2009-10 MIA
49. Kobe Bryant 27.97 2005-06 LAL

Kind of glaring lol. I would have posted the playoff list, but Kobe is 75 on that list and I don't want to fuck up the formatting :-)

and even then he pops up three times before kobe

I know you have your MJ agenda. But a guy playing in his 17th season at a high level with 5 rings and leading the winningest franchise in NBA in several all time categories is in no way the most overrated player EVER. The only way he would be considered the MOST overrated player EVER would be for a significant number of people calling him the greatest player ever. You NEVER hear that. I'm surprised some of the semi-respectable Bean haters are eating this silly shit up.

The only way he would be
>considered the MOST overrated player EVER would be for a
>significant number of people calling him the greatest player
>ever. You NEVER hear that.

You might not hear that on TV TODAY because of how the Lakers are playing, but don't act like there isn't a significant push to make Kobe's legacy some all time shit.

The ESPN rewriting of Kobe's career has led a significant portion of the population to think it's Mike then Kobe. And that it's real REAL close, cuz you know 6 is only 1 more than 5. *Then* there's a big gap and then you have everyone else. Bullshit.

To establish how overrated someone is you have the numerator, how good the player actually is, and the denominator, how they are generally rated. Kobe is a great player, but his denominator is fucking huge. That's why he's the most overrated of all time.

The level of overrating that took place in 2008 alone has him as a first ballot overrated HOFer.

Eh you probably do but this reply screams anger.

MLK day is coming up.

>You might not hear that on TV TODAY because of how the Lakers
>are playing, but don't act like there isn't a significant push
>to make Kobe's legacy some all time shit.

IT IS SOME ALL TIME SHIT. It's not THE all time shit

>The ESPN rewriting of Kobe's career has led a significant
>portion of the population to think it's Mike then Kobe.

as far as 2 guards it is.


And
>that it's real REAL close, cuz you know 6 is only 1 more than
>5. *Then* there's a big gap and then you have everyone else.
>Bullshit.

No. It's:

MJ
.
.
.
.
Kobe
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
then whoever you want to put in there.


>To establish how overrated someone is you have the numerator,
>how good the player actually is, and the denominator, how they
>are generally rated. Kobe is a great player, but his
>denominator is fucking huge. That's why he's the most
>overrated of all time.

bullshit. You don't like the MJ comparison. That don't make him THE most overrated player ever.

>The level of overrating that took place in 2008 alone has him
>as a first ballot overrated HOFer.

Otherwise, he's on par with Ewing and below Robinson and Shaq.

Rank Player PER Year Tm
1. Hakeem Olajuwon* 38.96 1988 HOU
2. LeBron James 37.39 2009 CLE
3. George Mikan* 33.58 1954 MNL
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 32.35 1977 LAL
5. Michael Jordan* 32.04 1991 CHI
6. Tim Duncan 31.80 2002 SAS
7. Michael Jordan* 31.67 1990 CHI
8. Wilt Chamberlain* 31.31 1964 SFW
9. Shaquille O'Neal 31.00 1998 LAL
10. Chris Paul 30.70 2008 NOH
11. Shaquille O'Neal 30.61 2003 LAL
12. Shaquille O'Neal 30.45 2000 LAL
13. Tim Duncan 30.38 2006 SAS
14. LeBron James 30.34 2012 MIA
15. Michael Jordan* 30.06 1993 CHI
16. Michael Jordan* 29.90 1989 CHI
17. Anfernee Hardaway 29.88 1997 ORL
18. Wilt Chamberlain* 29.67 1962 PHW
19. Dolph Schayes* 29.61 1954 SYR
20. Amare Stoudemire 29.57 2007 PHO
21. George Gervin* 29.43 1978 SAS
22. Dwyane Wade 29.42 2010 MIA
23. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 29.39 1970 MIL
24. Tony Parker 29.33 2009 SAS
25. Grant Hill 29.29 1999 DET
26. David Robinson* 29.10 1996 SAS
27. Yao Ming 29.00 2005 HOU
28. Charles Barkley* 28.98 1999 HOU
29. Shaquille O'Neal 28.97 1997 LAL
30. Chris Paul 28.89 2011 NOH
31. Shaquille O'Neal 28.84 1999 LAL
32. Shaquille O'Neal 28.67 2001 LAL
33. LeBron James 28.56 2010 CLE
34. Hakeem Olajuwon* 28.46 1987 HOU
35. Tim Duncan 28.42 2003 SAS
36. Michael Redd 28.41 2006 MIL
37. Dirk Nowitzki 28.35 2009 DAL
38. Michael Jordan* 28.35 1988 CHI
39. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 28.31 1974 MIL
40. Dirk Nowitzki 28.28 2010 DAL
41. Shaquille O'Neal 28.27 2002 LAL
42. Michael Jordan* 28.06 1998 CHI
43. Elgin Baylor* 28.02 1961 LAL
44. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 27.91 1980 LAL
45. Charles Barkley* 27.85 1994 PHO
46. Hakeem Olajuwon* 27.69 1994 HOU
47. Marques Johnson 27.67 1981 MIL
48. Hakeem Olajuwon* 27.64 1997 HOU
49. George Mikan* 27.62 1952 MNL
50. Bernard King 27.60 1984 NYK
51. Dolph Schayes* 27.60 1952 SYR
52. Amare Stoudemire 27.57 2005 PHO
53. Dirk Nowitzki 27.50 2004 DAL
54. Paul Pierce 27.48 2005 BOS
55. Kevin Durant 27.47 2012 OKC
56. Cliff Hagan* 27.46 1958 STL
57. Charles Barkley* 27.45 1996 PHO
58. Tim Duncan 27.42 2007 SAS
59. Shaquille O'Neal 27.41 1996 ORL
60. Elgin Baylor* 27.38 1962 LAL
61. Kevin Johnson 27.37 1995 PHO
62. Tim Duncan 27.33 2009 SAS
63. Michael Jordan* 27.24 1992 CHI
64. Tracy McGrady 27.24 2005 HOU
65. Marques Johnson 27.21 1978 MIL
66. Wilt Chamberlain* 27.10 1965 PHI
67. Michael Jordan* 27.07 1997 CHI
68. Chris Webber 27.07 2000 SAC
69. Wilt Chamberlain* 27.05 1960 PHW
70. Tracy McGrady 27.04 2003 ORL
71. Clyde Lovellette* 26.98 1954 MNL
72. Dwyane Wade 26.91 2006 MIA
73. Charles Barkley* 26.84 1991 PHI
74. Baron Davis 26.84 2007 GSW
75. Kobe Bryant 26.83 2009 LAL

>

Shaq ok. but Robinson wasn't better than him.

...era for big men. He was like the Chris Paul of his era. While Robinson was the Steve Nash and Ewing the Deron Better.

(although Robinson has better PER and win-share numbers). The problem lies ion the fact that people think that he was 93-96 Dream for the majority of his career, and in reality, he was solidly below that.

It's funny how we dismiss phenomenal years from T-Mac and let his post-injury years taint his legacy, but seeming only remember Olajuwon's best years.

solidly below that? Look at his career numbers. He had a bit of a dry spell in terms of team success in the early nineties, but look at his numbers. Look at his defensive numbers. Look at his rebounding numbers.

93-96 was the apex of his prime, which *should* be the peak of his powers, but it's not as though he was anything less than All-NBA level for any of those other years. I mean... he made All-NBA First team in 87,88,and 89; and then again in 93 94 and 97. The only other players to capture it during that period of his career was Robinson 4 times and Ewing once. He made second team in two of those seasons, plus second team in 86 in his second year.

He was clearly the best center of his era, and that's not a slight to Robinson or Ewing.

Was Shaq better than Hakeem? That's certainly debatable. Shaq probably wins that argument. But Hakeem had already been one of THE very best players in the league for years before the Rockets ascended to their first championship...

>(although Robinson has better PER and win-share numbers). The
>problem lies ion the fact that people think that he was 93-96
>Dream for the majority of his career, and in reality, he was
>solidly below that.
>
>It's funny how we dismiss phenomenal years from T-Mac and let
>his post-injury years taint his legacy, but seeming only
>remember Olajuwon's best years.

you'll see that during 93-96:

His assists increased by 50%
His usage rate went up, yet his turnovers went down
His average PER increased by two full points
His WS goes up by 2.6

He was a significantly better player in those years.

...and one of the best handful of players in the league before those years.

hakeem could have had a better overall career but the potential was always there. there was a lot of turbulence in his career. obviously sampson's untimely retirement and then some nagging injuries of his own. he had kind of a tendency to sulk sometimes, too.

the important thing is that we DID see his BEST and he was doing it against other great centers, something that is not easy to say about many other guys.

to me, at his peak i might take him over any player. he had unparalleled range at both ends of the floor, absolutely dominated games.

for his career, obviously i would have him lower, somewhere in the top 5/6 centers and top 8-12 players.

Olajuwon had one of the best careers in the history of the league. It's not as though having Drexler on his team gave him a better career. It may have made the team better, but there isn't a single player (except for, say, Duncan and Dirk) who didn't play for some mediocre teams at some point in his career.

before he won the 2011 Finals, but your PG Warz comparison is perfect.

>...era for big men. He was like the Chris Paul of his era.
> While Robinson was the Steve Nash and Ewing the Deron
>Better.

if his knees and back didnt start to decline so early, he could have done a lot more. even playing with diminishing physical ability, he really accomplished a lot. if not for his health problems, he wouldn't have been nearly as much of a jump shooter and would have been a real beast on defense.

and was never the beast on defense in the league people thought he'd be coming out of gtown. he was a great player but not quite the equal of hakeem or robinson.

not that it matters, tim's happy being a top 10-15 player all time. kobe ain't.

24 hours news cycle
He is the biggest example of romanticizing the past

Relative to the era he had a similarly staggering physique and he contributed/dominated in many of the same ways. He took some pretty shitty Cincinnati teams deep into the playoffs.

I know your an old skool homer, I dont see that cat doing numbers remotely close to what he did in the 60's

Most players now can't even do one of those things really well.

by today's tempo, he'd average 22 points, 6 rebs and 8 assists. a star by any measurement, although not lebron james.

I am curious about how this works in reverse though. What does Brawn put up in O's era?

adjusted for era based on easily quantifiable things like pace and league averages.

i had some kid in my class who wanted to do some thorough stat project on lebron and past eras, but i bet he got drunk and forgot about it.

>i had some kid in my class who wanted to do some thorough stat
>project on lebron and past eras, but i bet he got drunk and
>forgot about it.

I'm real curious about that, but not enough to do the work on it.

I used to be real era-biased but I've rethought that stance over the years.

25-12-10-10 blks

>I am curious about how this works in reverse though. What
>does Brawn put up in O's era?

and he could average 25 in those days if he wanted to

honestly the stats he'd get would depend on what he prioritized.

that's according to some site that ran the numbers a year or two ago.

dude had a modern body back then, give him today's training staffs, programs, nutrition, etc and he'd be a beast and a half.

the possible exception of the 80s/90s with Jordan and Magic. And I did say "possible," yes.

you can see these guys adjusted numbers. they often used to try and knock them down, the triple crown type guys like oscar and wilt. even with all the tweaks and adjustments statisticians can throw, their numbers still are all-time great status.

that his numbers would be good today is pretty true of russell, too, but he was never the all around producer those guys were anyway.

/post

some 5 star HS players today have the size, speed, and athleticism to play in the NBA before Jordan's era.

asking if a player from a past era would perform in today's game isn't fair and irrelevant to this question.

it's like saying jessie owens is overrated when it comes to track & field.

if a 5'3" 165 mugsy boges could hang in the 90s, an elite 6'2" 180 WNBA wing player with handles, passing, can box out, play pick and roll, can shoot a wide open J, and run the fast break could hang in the 1970s.

i say that with confidence, along with a 5 star high school boys player today could hang in the 1980s NBA just on sheer athleticism. but i'm not saying they would dominate.

women can't "bang" with men cuz of their physiology. but i believe a player like bill russell could hang today...after a season in the d-league or overseas to adjust to the style/tempo of today.

3 seasons of a qb rating higher than 80
Broke 60% once in his career

I will say 2010 was the time we saw what was
Possible with him

And lol calling @ all these players nobody ever seen overrated

Whoops

and I'm not about to be the first.

Aw shit

And I love Reggie Miller.

He can't even claim best 3-pt shooter anymore. Ray Ray got that on lock...

especially now that ray got his ring and 'gevity...he's a notch below that but you can't ever take 8 points against the knicks away from him

we got Kobe, MJ, Wilt, and Russell as being the most overrated EVER


EV.....ER


mmmkay.


I mean, I think Wilt's overrated. That entire era is suspect relative to the NBA after the 60s.

but this post is ridiculous.

>but this post is ridiculous.

hey at least his avi's are nice.